I wanted to circle back on this when I had time to fully comprehend and respond. 2am is it, I suppose:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzrider

For bold #1, "that rider's errors on track are the result of an off track excursion," I have no idea what that could mean. Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Of should read "in". "That rider's errors on track are the result in an off track excursion". It shouldn't have "are the", neither, but that's how I wrote it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzrider

As for bold #2, "riders who make mistakes on track deserve the result of their off track excursions," nowhere on any forum anywhere, have I ever stated that I think riders deserve the outcome of their mistakes. I haven't said it verbally either. You used the correct word, "inference." This is something you made up. If you wonder why I'm torqued about it, that's why.

Clarification of thought: If your contention is that riders should not make mistakes on track to keep them from running off track, I can only assume that a rider who makes a mistake on track and runs off track, the contention is that the errors were preventable adding an element of deservedness. Why do I say that? Because not all off track excursions are preventable, as I explained above. However, this leads to a much clearer answer for why we see this differently: we operate (and for myself, manage the track) on the two extremes of track use: A formal, curriculum school environment and a completely open race environment. In your environment Andy, crashing is the ultimate fail. Running off the track is medium fail and improper use of controls is mild failure. In our race environment, we strive to not have crashes from riders, but they happen...and they happen a lot. On track, off track, crashes are a reality of trying to get the most out of yourself and your machine.

Track days exist in-between the extremes of a completely controlled school environment and an uncontrolled (meaning, we do not instruct the rider on aspects of how to control their motorcycle) race environment. A school environment, riders learn techniques on bike control. In a race environment, riders learn how to go fast, sometimes using techniques learned and techniques they adapt or invent on their own.

" I'll also say that by the time a rider is running off track, there were a lot of preceding errors that are preventable if we are focusing on the right things."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzrider

Now, to clarify my own quote from above:

The remarks were in the context of what a TDP could or should spend their time talking about in a morning briefing. A lot of people seem to feel the TDP should have mentioned the sandbags and any other hazard off the track surface. From a CYA perspective, this might be true. From the standpoint of making the rider safer I don't believe it is true.

When I said, "it is destructive to ply a rider's attention off the track surface," I was referring to the practice of talking about specific hazards off the track surface in a briefing and trying to orient the rider to them, get them to remember that location and presumably to do something differently in that area because of them. In my opinion, there are a lot of things wrong with this approach, if the objective is to make the rider as safe as possible.

Let's say we have announced that there are sandbags at the outside of turn 5. What do we want the rider to do there? Not hit the sandbag. There are ditches there and we probably don't want him hitting those either. If we just said that, we haven't given the rider anything specific to do to avoid a bad outcome.

We could say, "Don't run off track in turn 5." OK, the rider knows that turn 5 is a bad place to run off, but he still doesn't have anything to work with to avoid running off. And he might not even know where turn 5 is. At the beginning of a track day most people who have never been there and even several who have, will not be clear about which turn is which. This further undercuts the usefulness of talking about a hazard off track in turn 5.

Running off track is seldom safer than staying on the track. When we do run off the track, we are headed for an unknown outcome. Unless there is a dire circumstance on track, running off is either a poor decision, or is the result of an earlier error where we now cannot avoid running off.

In the name of safety, narrowing the problem down this way comes a little closer to being useful. There are hundreds of things we should not do on track if we want to remain safe and you can't account for them all. On the other hand, there is a much shorter list of correct actions and early warning signs that lead to better outcomes. My stance is that everybody is better off from a safety perspective focusing on those things.

So, the outcome I want is for riders to stay on track. I know the rider has a limited amount of attention and he's already distracted by a ton of things before anyone says anything. Rather than diverting the rider's attention further from correct actions by telling him about specific hazards, he is better off if I give him a way to ensure he doesn't end up off track.

Risk assessment. This thread is NOT about Daniel Kim suing Keigwins. This thread is not about Daniel Kim not being able to ride his motorcycle appropriately. This thread is not about Daniel Kim causing his own injuries.

This thread is about risk assessment; risk assessment for the track day provider, the track and for those reading, their own riding. Daniel Kim did poor risk assessment on his out lap. However, he is protected by an expectation that the track day provider, who's an expert in motorcycle riding safety conditions in a track environment, will have mitigated any an all reasonable risks to the rider while they are riding on the track they've paid for a spot to ride on. That is the contract with the track day and the rider. There exists no expectation of the track day that the rider will not crash, will not operate their motorcycle in a low skill manner, or not depart the track surface. There is an expectation the rider will not be negligent in their operation and in practice, this likely would need to be elevated to a gross negligent standard of operation, to absolve the Track day provider. George can speak as the reality on that part (we've never had a problem like that).

All justifications aside, the argument that a rider should be aware of the risks and "just not hit them" is not reasonable. The argument that non-disclosure of hazards is better so as to not occupy a rider's attention is terrible in the track day and racing world. That would be the first thing I'd attack if you came at me with that plan and in no way would I put one bike on track with a policy that focus's on non-disclosure. Riders hit EVERYTHING out on track. For the track day provider, the responsibility is to make sure all hazards (usually non permanent) are noted in the riders meeting as well as, mitigated to the best of the track day providers ability. Additionally, a track day provider must strive to not create additional hazards during the track day. A common one I see is instructors stopped in impact zones and crash trucks in impact zones on a hot track. Those are two bad ones. The logic that pointing out hazards and obstacles (known as "shit to hit") distracts a rider is logic I'd advise (heavily) not using when performing a risk assessment of a particular track. You are ALWAYS better off (more protected) over disclosing and noting track issues, than the inverse.

A providers duty is not to worry about the mindset of a rider, it is to educate any and all riders of the hazards that exist on the track they'll be riding on. that is because the providers duty is to protect the liability of the entity by disclosing the hazards, not protect each individual rider by getting in their heads. The legal argument for hazard disclosure is for risk mitigation of the entity, not altering the manner in which riders operate their motorcycles. Riders are assumed to take the information presented in the riders meeting and make their own decisions on how to approach certain hazards. I would not want to instruct a rider how to deal with a hazard in one manner or another in a race or track day environment. I don't like even that scintilla of liability.

On a moral note (and this is not aimed at you, morally), I don't feel it's moral to hide or not disclose hazards which may seriously injure a rider should they meet that hazard at speed. Giving them as much info as possible allows them to make judgment on what speed and approach to an area they will take. There are places on tracks where the risk isn't on the track, it's what happens if a rider departs the track and those areas always give a little bit of pause. The irony is, usually at race pace, a roll off can put you on the ground when you were trying to be safer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzrider

In the environment in which I coach, we consider running off track to be a late stage outcome of riding out of control. If you do it, you'll find yourself in the pits talking to course control, who may or may not let you back out on track, depending on how that conversation goes. In our view, it's almost as bad as crashing. So, one of the ground rules is, you must ride in a manner that allows you to stay on track.

If a rider has a plan for any given corner and deviates from that plan, it's an early warning sign that he's riding out of control. Giving the rider a drill or assignment that he can evaluate is helpful for keeping his riding under his control. If someone had helped Mr. Kim consistently hit his turn points and apexes, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation and he might be doing another track day right now. And a few lawyers would be doing something else.

To boil it all down:

Mistakes lead to bad outcomes. This is not a position on blame or deservedness; it is just so.

There are infinite possibilities for mistakes riders can make.

There are comparatively few things to get right at any given place on the track.

Riders have finite attention.

They are safer when we focus their limited attention on the things that lead to good outcomes.

As a simple example of this that most people can relate to, whether they have been to the track or not: If a rider sees a patch of gravel in a corner, are they better off staring at it or looking for cleaner pavement that they can ride over? And if you were to try to give them information that would help, you could say, "watch out for the gravel," or might you say, "there is gravel in the center of the lane, but the right-hand wheel track is clean. Ride there." Which seems more useful?

If I want track riders to stay safe, I'll start by setting the expectation that running off track is risky and the outcome is not in your control. Except in dire circumstances on track, it is not something to choose. Once we agree on that, we start focusing on riding behaviors that lead to being able to stay on track. We also monitor the small errors that can compound into larger ones and try to catch problems early.

The organization I work for is pretty fanatical about rider safety while at the track. We measure it and keep records of observed rider behavior, from small errors to crashes. Coaches have incentives to keep their riders from crashing. The tools they employ are keen observation, staying in communication with the rider, giving them tools to improve their riding and enforcing certain limits if it becomes necessary. We know which tracks are more problematic than others and we know why. We develop programs over time to influence the incidents downward while still getting results with rider improvement.

From that body of experience, I stand by the notion that calling riders' attention to specific off track conditions doesn't help the rider. It may provide air cover if a rider sues.

The one thing I can agree with you on from this side discussion is that it would be abhorrent to say that a rider deserves to get hurt for making an error. I'll let you know if I see anyone say that. While I don't think Kim deserved to be injured, he is responsible for the fact that he was.

To reiterate; we operate in two totally different environments. It's good to hear of the safety record of CSS, but I'd also expect that given the amount of control exhibited in a typical day. I'd also expect that given the level of control you explain CSS expects its instructors to have over its students. CSS is not an environment where riders are pushing their equipment and themselves. They're learning and perfecting techniques taught to them by CSS.

A track day is an amalgamation of practicing techniques and looking for lower lap times. As a rider chases lower lap times, they tend to make mistakes and in making mistakes, learning lessons on things "not to do". There isn't a fast way around a track without making mistakes and learning the track. A simple example is pushing a brake marker or searching for a line that makes for a longer straight. This isn't the environment of a structured school and all track day providers should be of the understanding that riders will run off the track and will put their bikes on the ground. The ONLY environment where a provider can get away with not pointing out "shit to hit" would be a highly controlled school.

Still, I'll go on record and say I think it's a bad, bad idea to not point risks/ hazards out to any rider going on track, even in a highly controlled school environment. Just my opinion from someone who's had their insurance policy gem be viewed as a pot-o-gold.

__________________
Posted as a BARF Member, NOT Moderator unless specifically noted as such. These opinions do not reflect the opinion of the BARF MODERATORS nor BARF itself. These are the opinions and posts of solely the posting member unless noted as such: "MOD HAT ON".